← All Phrases

“Section 143(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(1)13,466 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 143(1) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 143(1)

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

CIT v. Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court
3,235
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

Judgments citing Section 143(1)

Associated Hospitality and Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CPC, Mumbai

In the result the appeals by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1747/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Starline Workshop, Vs. Ito-Ward1(1) 1 C/O Sterling Motor Compound, Nashik 422 002 Old Agra Road, Gadkari Chowk, Nashik 422001 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Acbfs2289L Assessee By : Shri Ryan Saldanha Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2019-20 Vishnu Sadu Gade, Vs. Dcit, Circle -3 C-3, 302, Ashar Estate, Thane 400 604 Shreenagar, Thane (W)-400604 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aabpg4702C Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2018-19 Associated Hospitality & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Cpc 4Th Floor, Techniplex-I, Techniplex Complex, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Goregaon (W), Mumbai 400 062 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aafca7847P Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Shah Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Vasundhara Packaging Industry, Vs. Cit(A)- (Faceless) 501, Blue Bell, Royal Complex, Eksar Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai 400 092 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aadfv0326M Assessee By : Shri Ajay Singh Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad

For Appellant: Shri Ryan SaldanhaFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

confirming that adjustment made by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC („the AO‟) are within the purview of section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) which relate to disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) of that of the employees contribution to PF & ESI dues

Vishnu Sadu Gade, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir. 3, Thane

In the result the appeals by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1746/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Starline Workshop, Vs. Ito-Ward1(1) 1 C/O Sterling Motor Compound, Nashik 422 002 Old Agra Road, Gadkari Chowk, Nashik 422001 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Acbfs2289L Assessee By : Shri Ryan Saldanha Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2019-20 Vishnu Sadu Gade, Vs. Dcit, Circle -3 C-3, 302, Ashar Estate, Thane 400 604 Shreenagar, Thane (W)-400604 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aabpg4702C Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2018-19 Associated Hospitality & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Cpc 4Th Floor, Techniplex-I, Techniplex Complex, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Goregaon (W), Mumbai 400 062 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aafca7847P Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Shah Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Vasundhara Packaging Industry, Vs. Cit(A)- (Faceless) 501, Blue Bell, Royal Complex, Eksar Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai 400 092 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aadfv0326M Assessee By : Shri Ajay Singh Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad

For Appellant: Shri Ryan SaldanhaFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

confirming that adjustment made by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC („the AO‟) are within the purview of section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) which relate to disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) of that of the employees contribution to PF & ESI dues

M/S. Vasundhara Packaging Industry, Mumbai vs. ITO 32 (1) (1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1575/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Starline Workshop, Vs. Ito-Ward1(1) 1 C/O Sterling Motor Compound, Nashik 422 002 Old Agra Road, Gadkari Chowk, Nashik 422001 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Acbfs2289L Assessee By : Shri Ryan Saldanha Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2019-20 Vishnu Sadu Gade, Vs. Dcit, Circle -3 C-3, 302, Ashar Estate, Thane 400 604 Shreenagar, Thane (W)-400604 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aabpg4702C Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2018-19 Associated Hospitality & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Cpc 4Th Floor, Techniplex-I, Techniplex Complex, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Goregaon (W), Mumbai 400 062 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aafca7847P Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Shah Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Vasundhara Packaging Industry, Vs. Cit(A)- (Faceless) 501, Blue Bell, Royal Complex, Eksar Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai 400 092 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aadfv0326M Assessee By : Shri Ajay Singh Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad

For Appellant: Shri Ryan SaldanhaFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

confirming that adjustment made by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC („the AO‟) are within the purview of section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) which relate to disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) of that of the employees contribution to PF & ESI dues

Ashish Life Science P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT-Circle-9(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 964/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 964/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ashish Life Science Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Acit-Cir, 9(1)(2) 210, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar 213, Laxmi Plaza Industrial Vs. Estate, New Link Road, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Andheri, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb4093N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dhaval Shah Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murty सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.04.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “(Nfac)”] In The Relevant A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Passing The Order U/S. 250 Of The Act Through National Faceless Appeal Center Which Is Bad In Law & Invalid. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act Without. Considering The Written Submissions Filed By The Appellant. As Such, The Order Is

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murty
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM